I’m curious what folks here think about a new bill that is likely to pass here in Texas that immunizes trucking companies for injuries they cause by violating safety regulations and harming / killing Texans. HB 19 will make seeking compensation against trucking companies that violate safety regulations and cause crashes that harm or kill Texans significantly more difficult. Is this what you voted for when you voted for your representatives? Or do you see this as your elected representatives taking cash from the transportation industry knowing it would harm their constituents?
New Potential Texas law
- Thread starter Aggie98nHouston
- Start date
Under the proposal, a company would only become liable if a plaintiff proves gross negligence- effectively protecting the company from cases of ordinary negligence by their employee. What's not clear to me is what could happen in comparative fault cases. My gut says this is an effort to generally distance from respondeat superior- bet your ass other industries are watching this bill.
I’d rather see “loser” pays and take some cash out of attorneys pockets😁
Loser pays is interesting. It should be called “loser pays as long as the plaintiff loses.” Those bills never have a defendant paying attorney fees if they lose, only plaintiff.
Does that seem equitable and fair?
here is the other side of the coin:
The Keep Texas Trucking Coalition (KTTC) today released the following statement regarding Senate Bills 17 and 207 and House Bills 19 and 1617, which address abusive lawsuits against owners and operators of commercial vehicles in Texas.
“Abusive commercial vehicle lawsuits are jeopardizing small businesses and the essential services Texas families rely on. As our state works to recover from the pandemic and from the recent devastating winter storm, we can’t let lawsuit abuse kill these critical jobs and endanger our supply chain. The Texas Legislature can provide balance in commercial vehicle litigation by ensuring juries receive the full and accurate facts of a case, ensuring these cases are tried consistently across the state and addressing the ‘phantom damages’ that create a lawsuit profit center. This will make trials fair for both Texans who are legitimately injured and owners of commercial vehicles, while shutting down this job-killing lawsuit abuse. We are grateful for the leadership of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Speaker Dade Phelan on this issue, and look forward to being part of the solution to ensure Texas commercial vehicles aren’t unfair targets of lawsuits.”
Senate Bill 207 and House Bill 1617 address these issues by requiring juries to receive information about the true value of healthcare services provided to the plaintiff, not just the amount billed by the provider. Senate Bill 17, which has been reserved by the lieutenant governor, and House Bill 19 create consistency in how these lawsuits are tried and the type of evidence admitted by allowing both parties to present evidence that helps the jury understand the severity of the crash, and prohibit the use of purely prejudicial evidence about safety violations and employment practices that are unrelated to the accident in question.
According to the Texas Office of Court Administration, motor vehicle litigation has increased 118 percent in Texas since 2008, while other types of personal injury litigation have decreased. A lawsuit was filed after one out of every 10 crashes in 2019, up from one in every 17 cases in 2008. This has caused the price of insurance to skyrocket, whether or not a company has had an accident or even owns a vehicle.
Many commercial vehicle operators in Texas are small businesses that simply cannot afford the risk of an abusive lawsuit or the increased cost of insurance. If a company is not forced out of business by the increased burden, these costs are often passed on to Texas consumers in the form of more expensive goods and services.
The Keep Texas Trucking Coalition (KTTC) today released the following statement regarding Senate Bills 17 and 207 and House Bills 19 and 1617, which address abusive lawsuits against owners and operators of commercial vehicles in Texas.
“Abusive commercial vehicle lawsuits are jeopardizing small businesses and the essential services Texas families rely on. As our state works to recover from the pandemic and from the recent devastating winter storm, we can’t let lawsuit abuse kill these critical jobs and endanger our supply chain. The Texas Legislature can provide balance in commercial vehicle litigation by ensuring juries receive the full and accurate facts of a case, ensuring these cases are tried consistently across the state and addressing the ‘phantom damages’ that create a lawsuit profit center. This will make trials fair for both Texans who are legitimately injured and owners of commercial vehicles, while shutting down this job-killing lawsuit abuse. We are grateful for the leadership of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Speaker Dade Phelan on this issue, and look forward to being part of the solution to ensure Texas commercial vehicles aren’t unfair targets of lawsuits.”
Senate Bill 207 and House Bill 1617 address these issues by requiring juries to receive information about the true value of healthcare services provided to the plaintiff, not just the amount billed by the provider. Senate Bill 17, which has been reserved by the lieutenant governor, and House Bill 19 create consistency in how these lawsuits are tried and the type of evidence admitted by allowing both parties to present evidence that helps the jury understand the severity of the crash, and prohibit the use of purely prejudicial evidence about safety violations and employment practices that are unrelated to the accident in question.
According to the Texas Office of Court Administration, motor vehicle litigation has increased 118 percent in Texas since 2008, while other types of personal injury litigation have decreased. A lawsuit was filed after one out of every 10 crashes in 2019, up from one in every 17 cases in 2008. This has caused the price of insurance to skyrocket, whether or not a company has had an accident or even owns a vehicle.
Many commercial vehicle operators in Texas are small businesses that simply cannot afford the risk of an abusive lawsuit or the increased cost of insurance. If a company is not forced out of business by the increased burden, these costs are often passed on to Texas consumers in the form of more expensive goods and services.
It's a side. It's not based in truth at all. It's like the med mal crap that passed in 2005 that was not based in any truth at all, and did nothing to lower the cost of healthcare. Ask any judge in Texas if there is lawsuit abuse, and the answer is always no. It's just not a thing. Plaintiffs lawyers fund the cases, so they don't file frivolous cases because it is almost surely going to result in losing money. That's not to say it never happens, but it is extraordinarily rare. But Abbot got his tort money from a tree limb falling on him, so who cares about any other Texan who is injured by the negligence of others.
Also, how is this a line anyone can support?
"prohibit the use of purely prejudicial evidence about safety violations"
How about do not commit safety violations instead of asking the legislature to mandate courts to "don't tell the jury we committed safety violations." I agree violating safety regulations is prejudicial. Families also find it rather prejudicial when their loved ones are killed by trucking companies committing safety violations. So maybe stop doing it instead of seeking immunity from the legislature.
Also, how is this a line anyone can support?
"prohibit the use of purely prejudicial evidence about safety violations"
How about do not commit safety violations instead of asking the legislature to mandate courts to "don't tell the jury we committed safety violations." I agree violating safety regulations is prejudicial. Families also find it rather prejudicial when their loved ones are killed by trucking companies committing safety violations. So maybe stop doing it instead of seeking immunity from the legislature.
prohibit the use of purely prejudicial evidence about safety violations and employment practices that are unrelated to the accident in question.
Texas courts may already exclude relevant evidence on special grounds, including prejudice (Rule 403).
i'm going to level with you, i know nothing about, and don't care about, HB19.
when i saw OP asking about people's thoughts on
i thought it was such an absurd framing of the topic that i couldn't help myself.
when i saw OP asking about people's thoughts on
i thought it was such an absurd framing of the topic that i couldn't help myself.
Your presentation and view of this bill reflects the perspective of a plaintiff's attorney . Any good attorney (and I am sure you are one) can make a compelling argument for this bill.
I make this observation based on spending way to much of my time in a court room both federal and district, as a juror in criminal and civil cases, as a grand juror and as both a plaintiff and defendant. Ya'll can slice and dice a witness and when the case is over have a dinner and drink with the opposing attorney as best friends no matter the outcome. That's ok but it is reality.
Well looking into it, the rules I cited don't necessarily apply to justice courts.
We have rules for unrelated evidence. This just creates more fighting about what is related and therefore relevant.
ITS BK - I cannot make a good argument for this bill. It makes no sense. There was not a problem to solve, and allowing people who operate a 40 ton vehicle to get a pass on safety violations only harms Texans. I can never support any legislation that harms people for the benefit of insurance companies.
Offshore makes a solid argument, and with the increased litigation I can understand the support for this bill , which I would classify as a problem to be solved.
As far as your take on medmal suits, I do know that insurance costs were reduced with legislation and there were fewer nuisance cases but I was witness to several so to say that they are rare is not accurate based on my sample.
With these accidents and medmal cases there are many bonified suites and the victims should receive relief, but large multiple million $ settlements where the attorneys receive 30 plus % is abusive in the size of the awards and the remuneration for professional services. Using that logic, a physician that is successful saving a life by doing a highly complex procedure that few can do should receive far more compensation than they actually do. I know of no lifesaving procedure that brings in millions but I know of many legal case settlements that make millionaires out of the lawyers.
